- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:49:47 -0700
- To: Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>
- Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote: >> Actually, *only* having onstoragechange would solve both the use case >> of detecting when you are running low on storage, as well as when you >> are "out of the woods". Especially if we provide both the quota and >> the amount of used space in the event. > > Right. I think probably we should add either "a combination of > storagelow + storageok" or "storagechange", and the latter would be > more complete (and possibly be simpler). > > One concern for adding storagechange event is how frequently > the event is going to be fired. In the former email I tentatively wrote > this to be fired every 1 second at most frequent (or whenever the > storage info is changed), but this may be still too frequent if many > apps are contending to a storage space. Do you have any opinion > or preference on this? I think firing every second while writes are happening would actually be ok. Seems like you are spending a lot of battery power anyway at that point and so an extra callback a second doesn't seem like a huge deal. That said, doing it more rarely, like every 5 seconds, sounds ok too. One solution is to punt the choice to the page. I.e. something like: [Constructor(StorageType type, unsigned long rate)] interface StorageWatcher { readonly attribute StorageType type; readonly attribute unsigned long rate; attribute EventHandler onstoragechange; }; / Jonas
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 16:50:47 UTC